Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
That’s a good idea.
You do realise that everyone that reads here doesn't sign up to your persistent, in the right, analysis of everything - on topics you probably know little about other than what you've read.
You don't know anything more than anyone that's commenting on this as far as I'm aware, other than what you're been fed - and there's nothing wrong with that - but how about giving it a rest to talk to others that don't agree with your view, like you know something better?
You don't, I guess. You've jumped on a topic I know something about in the past and not only embarrassed yourself, but caused me quite a bit of upset at the time by the way you did it - because I was trying to help someone (and explain the larger welfare message during start of covid) on a hugely devisive topic - but you just jumped in trying to be your usual "stick it to the man" and instead killed a discussion where I was trying to set the record straight and gave me months of feeling shit by the personal way you did it.
You probably don't even remember.
But please, give it a rest and let other people have their say. Don't shut everything and everyone down that doesn't align with your view.
Say what ever you want. I’m not stopping you. I have no idea who you are, and don’t remember whatever engagement you are on about sorry. Really sorry it hit you hard, whatever it was.
I want to see Andrew in court. That won’t happen. Ever. But it looks like the case will actually finally get to court.
My jokey “that’s a good idea” comment about a trial was hardly “analysis”, just a joke that also in a few words reflects my opinion… namely that this should play out in court, not in the media. Andrew’s TV defence was a low point in this mess. There’s my uninformed opinion. If you’re not interested in it, scroll on by.
Against the grain, and he might be evil personified for all I know, but you know – evidence, an actual trial, stuff like that?
The one he has been trying to avoid? Never a good sign really if you approach to innocent until found guilty is to do your best to dodge the ability to be "found".
Plus leaving aside her specific allegations that he thought it was fine to hang out with a convicted sex offender isnt really the best look and certainly not what you would be wanting for a senior official.
Against the grain, and he might be evil personified for all I know, but you know – evidence, an actual trial, stuff like that?
If there were a lack of evidence then Virginia Guiffre wouldn't be prosecuting Andrew Windsor with a civil suit. Nothing says "I'm innocent, your honour" like avoiding the acceptance of a legal notice from the High Court, trying to get the case dismissed on technicalities and being photographed at the age of 41 with your arm around a seventeen year old girl in Ghislaine Maxwell's home.
The last few months of this case has made me realise just how deferential we are to an arcane hereditary aristocracy. If the Queen were to be our final monarch, I wouldn't lament the loss of a bunch of largely dim freeloaders, who've not only squandered a first class education, but who are reliant upon handouts.
This is fruitless, but why can so many people believe that Epstein's suicide is a cover up, but an already greasy-looking Royal being set up as the fall guy is just unfathomable?
chrismac
suggest you read up on how andrew is funded; start with the sovereign grant fund.
i have and surprise surprise he is funded by us along with the rest of the royal household leeches. Only note he doesn’t have to do anything in return
Why not tell us how much he receives from the sovereign grant fund as you have read it?
I can find no information about any funding he may receive from the sovereign grant fund; he receives/used to receive £250k pa from his mother to fund his 'office' while undertaking royal duties.
No other funding is declared.
The 4 Fs come to mind - first find the f'in facts; share the facts then we can have a meaningful discussion.
the life of jetting around the world as a playboy/ want to be power broker are gone. He’ll be a social pariah
You're missing something here IMHO.
We live in a society that voted in Boris for PM. Over the pond they had Trump as president. Our parliament contains people like Rees-Mogg. In a past life we had Farage as a bloody MEP for god's sake.
The depressing fact is, no-one really cares any more. Andrew is an oily shitbag, we all knew about "Randy Andy" pre-Ferguson, pre-Yewtree. But oil is a lubricant. No-one can go on national TV with the utterly ludicrous brass-neck defence of "I have a medical condition which means I can't sweat" unless they know unequivocally that they're untouchable.
Some (alleged) victim somewhere will probably get compensation to go away quietly. But the worst that's likely to happen to our royal member is that he'll be shuttled off to Australia or Canada or somewhere until everyone forgets and it all goes away.
he’ll be shuttled off to Australia or Canada or somewhere
I'm guessing that Andrew Windsor will need to go through the same immigration formalities as the rest of us now. I can't see Australia or Canada letting him in on more than a tourist visa if that.
I very much doubt he will ever be able to leave the UK again. who would give him a visa? all his friends in high places will be running away fast.
I doubt he will be seeing a jail cell but he will no longer be jetsetting around
There seems to be a lot of talk on Royal funding and how it's our money on this thread.
Is this correct? As I understand it the money comes from land and property which used to belong to the Royals (The Crown Estate). They historically made a deal with parliament to relinquish ownership in return for not having to pay for certain things they had previously been liable for (e.g. the military).
Now it turns out it was a great deal with UK military spending now 45 billion and the whole crown estate only worth about 14 billion but does that mean you and I are funding the Royals?
If they didn't exist would we all be better off financially and all be able to spend a little extra on our heating. I think not.
I am NOT defending the actions a naïve foolish man or the lies which have been told but I don't mind living in a monarchy and happy we have Royals to open hospitals rather than whoever is the latest Kardashian. If people aren't you really have 2 choices. Leave and emigrate to another country or campaign and vote for a party who commit to abolish the monarchy.
Copied from the Annual Report and Accounts:
The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. The Core Sovereign Grant is calculated based on 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year two years previous. The Crown Estate surplus for the financial year 2018-19 amounted to £343.5 million, thereby producing a Core Sovereign Grant of £51.5 million for 2020-21.
Edit: I can’t find anything specific about Andrew either.
db - that is correct as far as it goes but its not long ago the monarchy was virtually bankrupt - they got some deal on inheritance tax that allowed them to amass money and also of course the source of all their property is theft. Theft from the british people - if you go back far enough same as most of the aristocracy
They do not particularly annoy me but given a free choice they should be IMO more like the dutch or swedish royal families ie smaller, less snobbish and work for a living
The role in politics needs to be removed as well
I very much doubt he will ever be able to leave the UK again. who would give him a visa? all his friends in high places will be running away fast.
I doubt he will be seeing a jail cell but he will no longer be jetsetting around
Agreed - i reckon he'll be living out his days being shuttled between Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral.
I can think of worse ways to spend your retirement.
I very much doubt he will ever be able to leave the UK again. who would give him a visa?
Is there any travel restriction for people who've lost (presuming he does) civil cases?
I can think of worse ways to spend your retirement.
Indeed, look up Royal Lodge where he lives, must be hell for him.
Is there any travel restriction for people who’ve lost (presuming he does) civil cases?
Most countries have a catchall provision - I know we do. something to do with "against the public good" its been used to prevent islamic preachers entering for example despite them having no convictions.
does the US not require you to be "of good character" ?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/N1yZCCH/ex-Prince-Andrew-Trading-Card.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/N1yZCCH/ex-Prince-Andrew-Trading-Card.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Mods, can we change the thread title to "Andrew Windsor, what a cowardly little ****" please 🙂
and also of course the source of all their property is theft. Theft from the british people – if you go back far enough same as most of the aristocracy
For the English we can blame the beaker people, Romans, angles/Saxons/jutes, Vikings, Norman's...
Don't know the Nuance's of Scots and Welsh land theft, probably just blame the English
My history is pretty vague but IIRC after the Norman conquest was when the nobility was created and they were given large tracts of land for their loyalty - which is why a lot of the aristiocracy have weird names.
Just because te theft was a long time ago does not mean its not theft and I don't think the others you name actually held large tracts of land they were given for favouring the king - and tose holding are not there today
Much of our aristocracy owe their fortunes to their ancestor being pals of the king
Smart and cynical move?
No longer HRH, no longer keeper of the Horse Guards gonads or whatever...just Joe Ordinary done down and fighting the courts all on his own..."hasn't he suffered enough?"
Much of our aristocracy owe their fortunes to their ancestor being pals of the king
Most owe their fortune because they lent money to the crown, you mean. I think most of them weren't exactly what you'd call mates. (given how often they seem to be chopping each other's body parts off)
Just because te theft was a long time ago does not mean its not theft
Actually most of it not that long ago either (think enclosure acts of 18thC) all, of course, made nice and legal by several Acts.
Most owe their fortune because they lent money to the crown, you mean. I think most of them weren’t exactly what you’d call mates. (given how often they seem to be chopping each other’s body parts off)
The original way to ingratiate yourself was to be able to supply fighting men for the King's wars. Which reminds me of this tale my dad used to tell (or something along these lines):
A scruffily dressed 'gentleman of the road' was sleeping in a field one day and the landowner came by. Noticing him sleeping there the landowner began shouting at the man to get off his land. The scruffy man asked:
'how did this come to be your land then?'
'well it belonged to my father, and his father before that, and his father before that'
'and how did it come to be their land?'
'well their forefathers received it from the king as a reward for their skill and courage in battle'
'OK I'll fight you for it then'
Many of us will admit to having been naive and foolish on occasions but that's far removed from being an abuser of children. If we need someone to open hospitals then a role model/achiever would be infinitely preferable to someone who happened to have inherited a title.
NB how does one get into Cambridge with a C and 2 Ds?
Once again, I agree with TJ here:
Theft from the british people – if you go back far enough same as most of the aristocracy
They do not particularly annoy me but given a free choice they should be IMO more like the dutch or swedish royal families ie smaller, less snobbish and work for a living
Soo, how's he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?
Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?
I think it is naive to believe that any of the queens direct descendants doesn't have access to 10 of millions in investments,
Why not tell us how much he receives from the sovereign grant fund as you have read it?
He gets £250k plus all his travel costs and expenses are covered. It doesn’t detail how much that costs us because they aren’t broken down that much for the public version of the accounts but I don’t suppose it’s like you or I claiming expenses from work
Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?
Thats a dilemma facing anyone pursuing another through the legal system. If I win can the otherside actually afford to pay up? And, similarly for a legal firm representing you - are we likely to get paid...
Many of us will admit to having been naive and foolish on occasions but that’s far removed from being an abuser of children.
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
He's surely a sleaze and I'm not excusing anything he may have done, but let's not go all Daily Mail.
Grooming and moving around kids as young as 14 and pimping them out is abuse in my book. If it wasn't abuse, she wouldn't have a case.
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
i work in Children's Services, with what we know about this case it is agreed unanimously that this is very much abuse of a child.
A middle-aged bloke in position of considerable power, who was best mates with a sex trafficker, bonking a 17-year old victim of sex trafficking in the home of a paedophile
is far removed from being an abuser of children.
FIFY
To be clear, you can be legally considered an abuser of children, even if that child is older than the age of consent, if the abuser is in a position of authority (such as teacher / child)
I was reading this opinion piece in the Guardian and was struck by the photo
The Andrew formerly known as Prince marching along yet completely out of step with everyone else. Metaphor overload.
My point is, deliberately emotive language and hyperbole doesn't help clarify things but rather the opposite. It's unhelpful.
You may have different legal definitions that I can't be bothered to look up, but biologically a child is someone who is prepubescent. Similarly a paedophile is one attracted to prepubescent children. For all his alleged transgressions, the Fresh Prince of Bell End wasn't shagging a 9-year old.
To be clear, you can be legally considered an abuser of children, even if that child is older than the age of consent, if the abuser is in a position of authority (such as teacher / child)
Yes, it effectively shifts the age of consent to 18. The term is "abuse of trust" and it's fairly tightly defined (really, it's too tightly defined). Teacher is on that list but I don't think prince is.
The charge, is it not, is one of trafficking. He (/someone) had a young woman moved from a state where the age of consent was 18 to a neighbouring one where it was 16. My understanding is that this is directly illegal under US law.
Here's a question, what happens to Beatrice and Eugenie's titles now?
I assume they retain their Princessly status and stay part of the royal household, would any crown assets previously held by Andrew, potentially be gifted to them, or indeed any other royals?
And for that matter what about Fergie?
As I understood it she still retained her title as 'Duchess of York' after the Divorce, what about now, does she still keep her title? (she might actually want shot of it TBH)...
I do wonder if part of the reason for removing his titles and official status as a member of the Royal household to insulate Crown assets from the US civil case?
As of today He's just the black-sheep of a wealthy British family, living in his Nan's old cottage, with whatever is in his current account (presumably a couple of quid) and no job or other source of income to his name...
and no job or other source of income to his name…
Navy pension, JSA....
It's come at a bad time for him, Charles is wanting the monarchy streamlined for the future and rumours were that Andrew was trying to get his daughters to take up some of the roles that Harry was doing to get them into the inner circle, which was a few years of charming with weddings, births, etc, all knackered by this.
I doubt Andrew will struggle with the bill, he has resources and the Queen will always help out, she has access to the Privy Purse and her own funds squirrelled away, so easy to fund without any issues.
It's going to be a long year for him, and the actual trial still isn't set in stone, and causing this much hassle already!
You may have different legal definitions that I can’t be bothered to look up, but biologically a child is someone who is prepubescent
Legally, a child is someone under 18. So the sentence you dismissed as "emotive" may literally be true.
Legally, a child is someone under 18.
Not in the UK - age of consent is 16.
Not in the UK – age of consent is 16.
Doesn't matter, you're still a child. Look it up.
Our crazy laws. You are a minor till 18, but age of consent is 16. Though I genuinely don't know how that circle gets squared.
Read the other day that it was only raised to 16 in the Victorian era, previously it was 12. Which is sickening.
Which is sickening.
Only to us now. Back then it wasn't.
Edit. And if anyone thinks I agree with it be assured I think the likes of Jimmy Page and Boll Wyman should be hauled through the courts.
The only reason David Bowie and John Peel aren't on the list is because of their deaths. Maybe the details of their lives should more emphasised.
Legally, a child is someone under 18. So the sentence you dismissed as “emotive” may literally be true.
It may be (does "child" even have a legalese definition? "Minor" maybe, or something to do with ages of consent). But however you slice it, calling him a nonce is misleading. You hear that someone is a kiddie fiddler, do you think "well, she was probably 17" or do you immediately conclude that they were hanging out outside primary schools armed with puppies and Haribo?
Doesn’t matter, you’re still a child. Look it up.
"Do your own research"? Come now. You look it up and then give us a link.
I looked it up on Google, Wikipedia and several online dictionaries including the OED and they all agreed with my biological definition. It could easily exist but as yet I haven't found a definition in English Law.
Every day is a school day
Id like to see a sliding scale for cosent depending on age gap. Some countries do that
I looked it up on Google, Wikipedia and several online dictionaries including the OED and they all agreed with my biological definition
I really don't know why you're pursuing matters of biology when we're talking about legal proceedings. The law is clear.
You said
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
You are incorrect.
Edit, deleted as I don’t want to make flippant silly comments on a thread about sexual abuse
According to United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of the Child, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18. The Department of Education define a child as anyone yet to have their 18th birthday.
And in other news a rat is awarded a medal for finding mines.
One rat gains awards, another loses them.
dyna-ti
Free Member
And in other news a rat is awarded a medal for finding mines.One rat gains awards, another loses them.
The rat actually passed away recently, was awarded the medal a few years back.
RIP Magawa :o(
A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.
You are incorrect.
How about an 18 year old guy (or a 25/30/35 yr old guy) and a 17 year old girl? Just curious where the LAW draws the line at "middle aged"...
Id like to see a sliding scale for consent depending on age gap. Some countries do that
This has definite merit.
How about an 18 year old guy (or a 25/30/35 yr old guy) and a 17 year old girl? Just curious where the LAW draws the line at “middle aged”…
Depends on the context, doesn't it. A 25 year old teacher having sex with a 17 year old student would be in serious trouble.
That's why it's wrong to say that Andrew is "far away" from being a child abuser. The child protection officer on this thread thinks so, anyway.
Rule of thumb, dont sleep with anyone younger than half your age plus 7. It kinda works, you are 18, dont sleep with a 16 year old, you are forty the minimum is 27, 60 is 37. Discuss.
And yet when my 19 year old friend got together with her 31 year old former teacher, that was absolutely fine - married for 30 years now.
Yes the law rightly has set "limits", but the moral frothing around the subject is interesting.
Rule of thumb, dont sleep with anyone younger than half your age plus 7. It kinda works, you are 18, dont sleep with a 16 year old, you are forty the minimum is 27, 60 is 37. Discuss.
I'm 52, the chances of me finding a desperate 33 year old with low enough self esteem isn't great.
Really tough one this. Would Andrew have known she was 17 and not 18. If they met in a club would not the natural instinct be that she is 18 and thus considered an adult?
Or if it was 3 months before her 18th, is she really considered a child on here?
When I was 40 my girlfriend was 27 when we met. When does age gap become appropriate?
So an 18 year old and a 30 year old, is that wrong? Is a girl over 18 allowed to choose a boyfriend of any age, but a few months earlier and her boyfriend could be considered a nonse?(based on the same man now being 29 yr okd and 17 year old girl)
Whilst I don’t think he’s a typical “nonse”, I’m confused at to what bracket he would be in.
Lots of historic pop stars seem to get a free pass. Elvis met Priscilla when she was 14, after his marriage ended he had a relationship with another 14 year old, very little is mentioned about Elvis but obviously a nonse yet we still refer to him as the King. Steven Tyler who got a 16 year old pregnant when he was 27….lots lots more including those previously mentioned….
Can you tell I’ve had a few beers? Absolutely not sticking up for Andrew, I think he was aware that she was a young exploited teenager. But I can see how he could say he had no idea. She was just a girl introduced to him in a club.
All the examples being given just now are those involving willing partners, exchange that for a vulnerable 17 year old and redo the examples.
Just noticed me and my ex just got into Stumpyjons calculation….phew I’m not a nonse!!!
Argee, would he have known she was vulnerable?
Yes I think he did know personally. But I can see how he can see he had no idea.
If he thought it was all above board why is he lying about ever even meeting her?
The 90’s for me were a drug and alcohol fuelled blur. Lots of sex happened. I could be shown a photo and quite honestly would not recognise some of the people I slept with.
He’s a lying turd, and I’m just
playing devils advocate.
. She was just a girl introduced to him in a club.
When I’ve met women in clubs they’ve been equals (ish), roughly in age, maturity, life experience, etc. If someone introduced a 17 year old to me when I’d been in my 30s I figure it would be quite noticeable that this was a bit off (IANAPrince)
It's not the claim he slept with a 17 year old that's got him into bother, he has been known as randy andy, airmiles andy, playboy prince, etc, etc his whole life, the press and country played up his whole lifestyle.
Sleeping with a 17 year old as a one off wouldn't be great for his image, but it wouldn't ruin him, it's the entire story surrounding it that's bringing him down, the constant links with Epstein, even after his earlier convictions, his relationship with Maxwell, now also convicted, that horrific interview which even had the interviewer looking embarrassed at his answers.
It's been a perfect storm, and i dare say that it's also a bit of revenge for some in terms of adding fuel, or giving it press, it's all coming home to roost for him, but definitely not just him sleeping with a 17 year old, that wouldn't have even made much press in this day and age!
Wasn't he (allegedly) f++king her at 17 in New York where the age of consent is 18?
So that's slam-drunk illegal, leaving aside "morality"/vulnerability/trafficking....
When I’ve met women in clubs they’ve been equals (ish), roughly in age, maturity, life experience, etc.
You obviously haven't been to grab-a-grannie night at the Grafton club in Liverpool 😉
Im 60. Me bonking a 37yr old would be well weird
Im 60. Me bonking a 37yr old would be well weird
Let's just enjoy the new Shand for now....
MoreCash - is that Scottish slang? I don’t want to imagine TJ with a 37 year old never mind a hand shandy!
Yes I know it’s his new bike!
I don’t want to imagine TJ with a 37 year old
A whole day of STW waiting for him to go and meet her by train, demanding pics when he gets her home.....
As always, age isn't the biggest issue, look at Leonardo DiCaprio, he started dating a 19 year old when he was 43 or so, it's a running joke he's never dated a woman over 25, but it's not mentioned or offensive to anyone, because he is chased by women of all ages and is seen as a playboy, which Andy was as well back in the day.
For me it's all the other circumstances that are the issue, if he'd slept with a 17 year old who was one of his horse riding mates daughters or sister it wouldn't have caused a huge fuss, he'd have been out front of the castle looking sad and talking about letting everyone down, the press would have the stories of him being depressed or whatever, and a few months later he'd be back, but this isn't that story.
I really don’t know why you’re pursuing matters of biology when we’re talking about legal proceedings. The law is clear.
Is it?
Which law are you referring to?
According to United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of the Child, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18.
Cool, this is progress. Yes it does, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you.
So under the "United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of the Child" what laws have been broken here? The closest I can find is (with no trace of irony) Article 34 which states that you shouldn't act unlawfully. Which is kind of meta and shoves the responsibility straight back onto local laws.
Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Yes, I'm doing it to try and extract facts over knee-jerk noise, there are people here who surely know this stuff way better than I do and I'm trying to convince them to explain it to us rather than folk in the wings screaming "yes but nonce". It's easy to be outraged - I'm outraged with the privileged gormless sweatless arse - but it's far more difficult to objectively define that. And (again) making shit up isn't helpful.
You do wonder what would have brought the likes of Andrew, Epstein, Mandy and Maxwell together, maybe they shared specialist hobbies we haven't yet heard about.
Money and alcohol?
Famous people being "associated" with other famous people is straight out of JHJ's playbook. Have you got a photo of Andrew with Jimmy Savile?
Yes, of course it's totally possible that they had a massive child-grooming ring going. But it's surely a leap to assume that as fact. Maybe they all liked champagne and yachts. Maybe they thought they were untouchable and could get away with running a black market in trafficking teenage girls. Maybe they were all huge Origami nerds.
Maybe we should find out.
I’m guessing you haven’t read the thread Cougar. The allegations cover being forced to have sex after being trafficked to multiple territories, where different laws apply. The UK age of consent isn’t the key issue at all. BBC summarise here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58871849
Blimey, I was only asking. Didn't mean to touch any raw nerves.
Bill, money is the golden thread.
maxwell and windsor wanted it, epstein had loads of it although how he got it is still unknown.
Everything else was secondary to their single-minded pursuit of money; they both clearly felt short-changed and wanted what, they felt, was their entitlement.
I posted hundreds of posts back...follow the money.
Is it?
Yes. You may think you're playing Devil's Advocate but you're just coming across to me as a bit of a tool.
Think what’s being missed in some of the devils advocacy here is a basic understanding of power dynamics. Age of consent is only part of the social contract at work. Yes, there are people in successful, happy, co-responsive relationships with large age gaps. But particularly when those age gaps are present where one of the individuals is young teens/ early twenties there is a concurrent power imbalance.
The prince formally known as Andrew was clearly taking advantage of a significantly unbalanced “relationship” whether this was legal or not is immaterial as the young (at the time) person in question is clearly aggrieved.
Net closing in.
Civil case accuser seeks UK witness testimony
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60005128